It would be, if it were say a compilation of their blogs, interviews, and various verbal ...erm...stylings, quite a gold mine for the statement analysis people.

If it's a fairy tale, while it would be amusing it would also be an inducement to high blood pressure, full of lies and so frustrating that anyone can believe that garbage.

i just went in and read Kate's comment and her mother in law's.

First says Mrs M, they are just not a family unit without Madeleine. A year later and they just cannot offer the twins a normal life.

I find that distressing, hard to believe it is nothing the PARENTS do that causes the twins to still be fixated on this, children are in the moment. A sister they lost at 26 months, a year ago, would not be present for them at 38 months, I don't think, to the point they are still demanding to know where she is. They aren't a family unit and have no normal life. Is this because of visits to the Pope and having the Unclean One around trying to work on the World Best Campaign all the time? ugh! Or is it because their little mother is gone and all they have is this big ghost Kate drifting around.

Then Kate saying that someone "came into maddie's room, carried her out in her pajamas, and we just don't know where she is" strikes me as a mass of lies. Why IN HER PAJAMAS? Why does that need to be in the statement of what happened to her? It makes me feel 99% sure that Madeleine was not in pajamas when she left that dwelling, or if she was, there was something about that that sticks up - did they dress her in her pajamas before "somebody" took her out?

That Kate -sentence reminds me of the old Grouchy marx joke, about- This morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas.

I just read on some Statement analysis blog that they look for just that kind of unnecessary information being added into a sentence because that is something around which the suspect has anxiety. My child was taken! might be a normal sentence or someone kidnapped her! But, someone came and got her and carried her out in her pajamas is too much information for a description...seems to me.

You have the parents showing Amaral Madeleine's pajamas - supposedly Amelie's matching ones - it makes me wonder did they in hysteria or panic of the moment when asked what her pajamas were like, quickly produce her actual ones only then realizing, God, we can't say these are hers -if she was taken out in her pajamas they would not still be in the house! So suddenly they are Amelie's. Except when Amelie sees them she refers to them as Maddie's.

CPS shows up later in Rothley and she's wearing them, and Madeleine's sandals. i just find that highly creepy. I wonder how those pj's fit. Two sizes too large is my guess.

ann_chovey wrote: Widowan wrote: did they dress her in her pajamas before "somebody" took her out? .

Agree 100%, that child was never put to bed. i.m.o. 5.30-6.00pm. critical time.

Normally you wouldn't even think or speak of what she was wearing, you wouldn't give it a second thought, Kate for some reason needed to tell us that Maddy was in her PJ's, cementing the theory that Maddy was in her bed, but actually never made it to her bed that night, as you say 5.30 - 6pm critical time.

I haven't been able to read all 21 pages of this thread but, having been away at the beginning of September, I hadn't seen this information (contained in the initial post). I tend to agree with others who've said that their legal team are being as aggressive as possible in the belief that Amaral will settle out of court. However, I can't believe that the McCanns are using the pain caused to their family as an excuse to attempt to break up someone else's family life. There's no doubt that separating Goncalo Amaral's assets from his wife's, taking his share of his house and getting half of his pension, would massively affect his own family's future life. If the law's supposed to be about an eye for an eye, how does taking all of someone's financial assets off them equate to somebody supposedly committing libel? Perhaps somebody should get the McCanns and Goncalo together in a room, and they could aim various accusations at him . He could use this as a distraction to steer people away from any major crimes he may have committed, argue that it's upset him, and then they'd be square. In the UK the McCanns wouldn't be able to demand all the financial assets of somebody who's accused of libel, and I thought Portugal had freedom of expression as an important principle, without the court intervention we have here that seems to equate suppressing freedom of expression with how much money you can throw at the problem . If Madeleine had been abducted (and I don't believe for one minute that she was), wouldn't the McCanns be better off ignoring issues like this? How can they argue that most people are on their side, know Madeleine was abducted (after all, she wasn't there any more), and only those who are nasty, mad, nutters, etc, believe that the McCanns know what happened to her, whilst proclaiming at the same time that Amaral's made people stop looking for Madeleine?

AnnaEsse wrote:Sans, I know this may be somewhat difficult for you, answering a question about a statement you have made, but which Ms Shilling were you referring to?

You are of course quite right - I should have thought before typing - it is of course David Shilling who is the milliner, whilst Mrs Shilling was his mother.

I offer my most humble apologies to the forum and throw myself upon your mercy.

Thank you sans. I would just add that if the McCanns, both of them, take the witness stand in a court of law and answer questions about their search for their child without either getting rather worked up, then I shall cook a hat-shaped cake and eat it.

Conditions:

1) They take the stand.

2) They answer all questions about searching for their daughter and what makes them so sure she's alive and unharmed.

3) Neither gets worked up about the questions being asked.

Don't bother because that would be cheating.

The hat would have to be one of my choosing........

I only eat my own home-made cakes. And I would be happy to photograph it before and with me eating it. You have entered into this hat business at a stage where the conditions are not open to you. The conditions are set by the person who makes the offer, not by a bystander.

You are of course quite right - I should have thought before typing - it is of course David Shilling who is the milliner, whilst Mrs Shilling was his mother.

I offer my most humble apologies to the forum and throw myself upon your mercy.

Thank you sans. I would just add that if the McCanns, both of them, take the witness stand in a court of law and answer questions about their search for their child without either getting rather worked up, then I shall cook a hat-shaped cake and eat it.

Conditions:

1) They take the stand.

2) They answer all questions about searching for their daughter and what makes them so sure she's alive and unharmed.

3) Neither gets worked up about the questions being asked.

Don't bother because that would be cheating.

The hat would have to be one of my choosing........

I only eat my own home-made cakes. And I would be happy to photograph it before and with me eating it. You have entered into this hat business at a stage where the conditions are not open to you. The conditions are set by the person who makes the offer, not by a bystander.

I like it, zodiac! They've got some really good stuff on that site. I've been looking at the griddle and blue steel frying pans. Quality!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

Re; The pyjamas......I don't believe Madeleine was wearing them when 'it' happened. That is why I believe that Gerry's carrying of a child UNWRAPPED in a blanket was crucial. Otherwise who would have seen what she was wearing?? If you get my drift.She had to be unwrapped ( whoever she was).

Wasn't there a towel found there too. Sure that was in an article in the Express before they rolled over and paid up. And wasn't the barn featured in some phone triangulation on 10 June 2007 with GM and one of the tapas men? Think the barn is 40 odd miles from PDL, but like so much in this tragedy there's so much confusion, forum myths and the like. Will we ever learn the real truth.

In the trailer for Dr Amaral's video Madeleine's bed is shown with the pink blanket on the bed. Was it ever established if the PJ do have this, or did it disappear along with the blue bag?

jay2001 wrote:Wasn't there a towel found there too. Sure that was in an article in the Express before they rolled over and paid up. And wasn't the barn featured in some phone triangulation on 10 June 2007 with GM and one of the tapas men? Think the barn is 40 odd miles from PDL, but like so much in this tragedy there's so much confusion, forum myths and the like. Will we ever learn the real truth.

In the trailer for Dr Amaral's video Madeleine's bed is shown with the pink blanket on the bed. Was it ever established if the PJ do have this, or did it disappear along with the blue bag?

Says ClarrieYesterday Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman, said: “Kate and Gerry’s friends are happy to be reinterviewed by police if necessary, indeed are keen to help if it clears up any inconsistencies. They, like Gerry and Kate, have nothing to hide.”

I think we can take it as read that mentioning the suspects by their first names to humanize them shall be done often as possible, IS in the handbook for risk management spokespersons.

Misread your post thinking you were referring to today but it was 2007 ! - silly me - but G is still "free" though no action is being considered at the moment - they just have to get the libel case out of the way and who knows his prediction may come true !

Yes - the link Sandi has given - if you read it there is mention of the mobile phone signal which locates where G/K would have been - I have completely forgotten about this information - it would also have been available to the PJ which is interesting. So if they were interviewed again by the PJ and questioned about their movements on certain days they would necessarily have to tie up with where their mobiles phones were - no wonder they don't want to re-open the case - imagine how much they would have to remember "not" to say.

Misread your post thinking you were referring to today but it was 2007 ! - silly me - but G is still "free" though no action is being considered at the moment - they just have to get the libel case out of the way and who knows his prediction may come true !

Angelique

Sorry for the confusion. I was quoting from the old 3As link Sandi posted. Ah yes! The libel case! Bring it on! Is this the libel case which is always about to happen but never does? Everything seems to depend on this libel case, but if they win it how will that remove suspicion from the McCanns? All it will achieve is the ruin of Dr. Amaral and his family. 1.2 million Euros or 12 million Euros will not remove suspicion from the McCanns; they have condemned themselves for life.